package 'V8' successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked
package 'concaveman' successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked
The downloaded binary packages are in
C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local\Temp\RtmpcBwzEg\downloaded_packagesOn Nigeria 2.0
Endline Social Network Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
The MacArthur Foundation’s Big Bet On Nigeria program supports Nigerian-led efforts to reduce corruption by strengthening accountability, transparency, and participation. A resilient accountability ecosystem—the networks of relationships “between citizens and governing authorities … [and] other important actors, including media, private sector, diverse organized citizen groups, and various actors within the state itself” that collectively support social accountability—is essential to the success and sustainability of On Nigeria’s anticorruption programming (for more on accountability ecosystems, see Halloran’s Accountability Ecosystems: The Evolution of a Keyword).
This social network analysis (SNA) report explores how On Nigeria grantees collaborate with other actors in the broader accountability ecosystem and with each other, the outcomes to which collaboration contributes, and how and to what end collaborative networks might be further strengthened, to bolster anticorruption efforts. To do this, the report will investigate the ecosystem elements of collaboration, diversity, adaptive resilience, institutionalization, and scale.1 As a result, this report directly addresses the evolution of the accountability ecosystem (the “trunk” of On Nigeria’s theory of change”).
Methodology
Overview
In October 2024, the evaluation team (ET) held a workshop in Abuja, Nigeria with On Nigeria grantees in all four cohorts (Behavior Change, Criminal Justice, Joinbodi, and Media and Journalism). Each grantee identified their primary partners, and in November 2024, the ET followed up with each grantee via survey to identify additional partner relationships. In January 2025, the ET sent a survey to non-grantee organizations that were identified by grantees as connections to develop a more robust network.
To clean, analyze, and visualize the endline network data, the ET used the R programming language. To provide additional context around the network statistics, the ET used the network’s existing structure to generate a sample of 1,000 similar networks and calculated average network statistics for those networks. This provides a point of comparison for the actual network’s network statistics. In addition, the ET mapped the organizations to their respective states on an interactive map of Nigeria to better visualize the geographic make up of the organizations and their connections. A list of R packages used for the analysis is included in Annex X. This online report was rendered using Quarto.
The survey was supplemented with six focus group discussions (FGDs) with grantees (4 FGDs) and non-grantees (2 FGDs) in February 2025. Respondents all represented voice actors and were primarily from NGOs. There was one INGO represented in the Criminal Justice FGD, six participants represented private businesses (primarily media organizations), and one government entity was represented in the Joinbodi session. In terms of geography, fourteen participants organizations are based in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), nine were based in Lagos, two were from Kano, and one each were from Kaduna, Kwara, Plateau, and Akwa Ibom. Six respondents were female, while the rest were male. Finally the cohort breakdown was: four Criminal Justice grantees, eight Joinbodi grantees, seven Media and Journalism grantees, four Behavior Change grantees, and six non-grantees. The FGDs were all conducted remotely over Zoom, and the transcripts were analyzed using CoLoop.
Limitations
There are limitations to the data. There is a snapshot of data from the baseline (2021) and a snapshot of data from the endline (2024-2025). Since participation was voluntary, there may be gaps in representation, particularly among smaller organizations. The response rates for the endline survey were 69 percent for grantees and 53 percent for non-grantees.7
It is likely that survey fatigue affected responses as well. In addition, each time a new partner was added, it meant that a respondent had to go through the same series of questions again. This likely means that the included partnerships are not exhaustive due to time or an individual respondent’s knowledge. On Nigeria subgrantees were not specifically included in the survey sample, although some sub-granting grantees mentioned them as partners. However, the data do not distinguish between non-grantee organizations and On Nigeria subgrantees. Therefore, the data might also understate the depth of connection some organizations represented as non-grantees have to the overall network. Neither the online survey nor FGDs contained any questions specifically focused on collaboration related to gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) activities or considerations. Data for analysis of this component were based on mentions of GESI made during the FGDs and open-ended survey questions. Thus, the data on this may not provide a complete picture. Finally, it is important to emphasize that there is no inherent judgment associated with the specific value of any network statistic—they are all context specific: a very high density or centrality score, for example, is not necessarily desirable, as it may not be efficient or effective for every network actor to be connected to all, or even many, others. Rather, collaborations covered in this report should be understood within the context of each network actor’s goals and activities. In an attempt to help the reader understand the network statistics, the ET generated 1,000 similar networks based on the actual network structure and calculated average centrality statistics as a benchmark against which to compare the actual network statistic averages.
Findings
The primary research question that this SNA contributes to is, **to what extent, and in what ways (expected and unexpected), did On Nigeria 2.0 contribute to broadening,
_On Niger Anticorruption Ecosystem Elements
- Collaboration
- Diversity
- Adaptive resilience
- Institutionalization
- Scale
deepening, and strengthening a diverse, robust, and self-sustaining accountability ecosystem in Nigeria?**
The report explores the maturity of ecosystem elements to help understand how the On Nigeria Accountability Network is evolving in its collaboration, diversity, adaptive resilience, institutionalization, and scale.
Collaboration
This analysis explores the levels of engagement of On Nigeria grantees with other grantees and with non-grantees as well as across types of organizations and cohorts. Where there are connections, organizations typically operate at high levels of collaboration and frequently. Figure 1 presents the overall network map for all On Nigeria grantees and their non-grantee partners.
Among all connections, respondents rated 55 percent8 of them as highly collaborative. This means that there is frequent communication, long-term interaction and coordination, and that the partners share ideas and resources. In particular, high collaboration was reported among non-grantee–grantee relationships where 71 percent.9 were considered high collaboration. Figure 2 shows levels of collaboration among grantees and non-grantees. Notably, only four percent of all collaborations were considered low. Low level collaboration refers to infrequent networking and/or infrequent information sharing.
From | To | High collaboration | Medium collaboration | Low collaboration | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grantee | Grantee | 50% (50) | 45% (45) | 5% (5) | 40% (100) |
Grantee | Non Grantee | 52% (77) | 45% (66) | 3% (4) | 60% (147) |
Non Grantee | Grantee | 71% (47) | 24% (16) | 5% (3) | 80% (66) |
Non Grantee | Non Grantee | 47% (8) | 41% (7) | 12% (2) | 20% (17) |
Figure X: The majority of collaborations were rated as high, and this was especially true among non-grantee to grantee connetions.
In FGD discussions the beneficial role of the cohort was highlighted by grantees and non-grantees alike with participants referencing the supportive collaboration and inherent trust of other members. The cohorts serve as a space for like-minded organizations to interact more often than they otherwise would. Participants noted how this frequent collaboration was required to foster effective collaborative partnerships.
“We have good working relationship with some of our cohort members as well as now we have what we call like an annual conference for the MAJ Cohort, for example, which all the partner organizations under the cohort are going to participate in. So every year would host a conference and this. I don’t know if that would happen this year but we’ve been able to do it for over three, the last three years. And I believe that would also be able to come together to still run some things like that.” –Media and Journalism cohort, FGD participant
Survey data supports this view that the cohorts are useful collaboration mechanisms with nearly all respondents reporting that the level of cohort–cohort collaboration is either high or medium.
From | To | High Collaboration | Medium Collaboration | Low Collaboration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavior Change | Behavior Change | 36% (5) | 64% (9) | 0% (0) |
Criminal Justice | Criminal Justice | 100% (3) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
JoinBodi | JoinBodi | 60% (15) | 40% (10) | 0% (0) |
Media and Journalism | Media and Journalism | 32% (9) | 50% (14) | 18% (5) |
Non Grantee | Non Grantee | 47% (8) | 41% (7) | 12% (2) |
Figure X: Intra cohort collaborations were almost always rated as either high or medium, meaning that these partners are engaging in longer term sharing and partnerships.
Finding 1: The overall network density is lower than any individual cohort’s density.
The density of the overall network is 1 percent. This aligns with the density of the baseline study, and should be read as neither high nor low. The densities of individual cohort neighborhoods are higher than the overall network. A cohort neighborhood includes those organizations that are in the cohort, and organizations that cohort members are directly connected to. The quote below illustrates how cohorts are useful even for those outside of the formal cohort.
“In collaborating with other organizations, particularly with CISLAC we have this quarterly opportunity to meet all the organizations that were under the CISLAC cohorts. So we compare notes and we share experiences and then learn from each other. That was very, very effective… When you are doing something and sometimes you may lack a little knowledge on how best to go about it, you can call on a partner who might also have that relationship the other way around. And then it works out.” –Non Grantee FGD participant
This ensures that the full effect of cohorts as organizing bodies is captured in the findings. The criminal justice neighborhood has the highest density but is also the smallest neighborhood with only 31 organizations.10
There are a few organizations that operate as central hubs in the network, both within and across modules. With the exception of Media and Journalism grantees, grantees tend to collaborate most with non-grantees or with grantees in their own module. Yet, within and across modules, the ratio of realized connections to all possible connections remains quite low.
Finding 2: Key organizations in connecting the overall network are primarily from the Media and Journalism and JoinBodi cohorts.
To better understand the key organizations in the overall network, Figure 3 presents a centrality layout. The organizations closer to the middle, with larger bubbles, and with labels play are more important role in connecting the different parts of the overall network. The five most prominent organizations filling this role in the overall network are Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (WSCIJ), Progressive Impact Organization for Community Development (PIOCD), Daily Trust Foundation (DTF), and the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD). It is also worth noting that the cohorts of Media and Journalism and JoinBodi are well represented in Figure 3, with Behavior Change also appearing. The Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), formerly a grantee, and WikkiTimes Media, Ltd. (WKTL) also play this important role from outside the formal grantee network.
Diversity
Finding 3: The On Nigeria Anticorruption Network includes multiple types of organizations that collaborate with each other and seek out new and diverse partnerships.
The most common type of organization is a non-governmental organiztion (NGO) which makes up 53 percent11 of all the organizations. This represents a 10 percent decrease in the percent of NGOs in the endline network compared to the baseline network. The next most frequent organization type are government agencies, making up 22 percent12 which is consistent with the baseline network (24 percent). There are 17 percent13 private businesses, an increase of 4 percent from the baseline. Finally, international NGOs (INGOs) make up 8 percent14 of the endline network. These organizations exist across the cohorts and collaborate regularly with each other.
From | To | High Collaboration | Medium Collaboration | Low Collaboration | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Government Agency | Government Agency | 50% (5) | 40% (4) | 10% (1) | 23% (10) |
Government Agency | International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | 83% (5) | 17% (1) | 0% (0) | 14% (6) |
Government Agency | NGO | 58% (15) | 38% (10) | 4% (1) | 60% (26) |
Government Agency | Private Business/Company | 0% (0) | 100% (1) | 0% (0) | 2% (1) |
International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | Government Agency | 83% (5) | 17% (1) | 0% (0) | 38% (6) |
International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | NGO | 88% (7) | 12% (1) | 0% (0) | 50% (8) |
International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | Private Business/Company | 50% (1) | 50% (1) | 0% (0) | 12% (2) |
NGO | Government Agency | 53% (28) | 43% (23) | 4% (2) | 23% (53) |
NGO | International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | 67% (8) | 33% (4) | 0% (0) | 5% (12) |
NGO | NGO | 57% (79) | 42% (58) | 1% (2) | 60% (139) |
NGO | Private Business/Company | 24% (7) | 72% (21) | 3% (1) | 12% (29) |
Private Business/Company | Government Agency | 60% (3) | 20% (1) | 20% (1) | 13% (5) |
Private Business/Company | International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) | 100% (2) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 5% (2) |
Private Business/Company | NGO | 70% (16) | 17% (4) | 13% (3) | 61% (23) |
Private Business/Company | Private Business/Company | 12% (1) | 50% (4) | 38% (3) | 21% (8) |
Finding 4: Cohort neighborhoods have diverse structures of hubs and organizations.
The Cohort neighborhoods are subnetworks of the overall network. They are defined as including those organizations that are part of each cohort and those organizations who are direct connections of cohort members. In this construction, the neighborhoods’ hub organizations may include organizations that are not part of the cohort. Figures 4-7 display centered hub organizations and the neighborhoods’ connections. Annex 1 contains maps of each cohort network within the overall netwok.
The JoinBodi neighborhood has multiple hubs from its cohort as well as the Media and Journalism and the Behavior Change cohorts.
Finding 5: Grantees are working to increase the number of individuals involved in the accountability ecosystem through outreach and capacity building, especially for women and youth.
FGD participants highlighted how they proactively and intentionally seek out new individuals to participate in their programs or new organizational partnerships. In the Behavior Change cohort, the Palace of Priests Assembly created three national platforms to promote discussions on anticorruption. Two of these coalitions are the Christian Women Against Corruption and Youth Vanguard Against Corruption. Also in the Behavior Change cohort, Al-Habibiyyah Islamic Society works with Mambayyah House and Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) to provide anticorruption outreach to youth as well as entrepreneurial and digital skills training.
“We were able to learn a lot from issues that affect women, especially with disability. We were also able to upscale their skill in the area of issues that has to do with disability law policy frameworks and how to push an agenda for a sustainable environment, a sustainable society that actually embraces all.” –Media and Journalism FGD participant
Through this combination, Al-Habibiyyah believes that financial security can allow people to become accountability advocates in their community. Women Radio outlined a collaboration with Premium Times and Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Jouralism (WSCIJ) to train female journalists at the women radio center in all states. Included in their series “Pivotal” was sexual and gender-based violence and gender equity issues. Their collaboration allowed for wider dissemination and amplification of the show.
To encourage youth engagement Daria Media focused a presidential townhall series around universities and WSCIJ works with communications students in order to ensure the next generation of journalists is ready to work. From the JoinBodi cohort, youth focused initiatives include supporting anticorruption clubs at secondary schools in Kano, and a similar initiative in Borno. BudgIT encourages and teaches youth how to actively engage with government representatives.
In addition, participants from all FGDs talked about seeking out partnerships with organizations that align with their goals. A few participants also discussed selecting partners based on expertise and strengths. This can be for two reasons: 1) so that partners work on different but complementary activities or roles (such as amplifying a message or story by another organization, acting as the convener for a group of diverse organizations who conduct technical work, etc.), and 2) for mentorship, capacity building, or general knowledge sharing. Finally, outreach can be to groups in different geographies which can help an organization to reach local or grassroots populations or students/congregants, or working with those with access to particular ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs).
All of these outreach efforts contribute to the diversity of the On Nigeria network and their interactions with their subgrantees and non grantee partners.
Finding 6: The On Nigeria anticorruption network works in all states.
The map below shows the geographic reach of the On Nigeria anticorruption network. The organizational headquarters are shown in approximate locations based on their state, and the individual states are shaded based on how many organizations work in the state. Each cohort is also represented in each state.